Abstract

The actions of States and decision-makers in international law can generate unanticipated consequences that are capable of spanning various legal regimes. This article considers how the lack of a precise definition of the term ‘investment’ in international investment law has permitted investment treaty arbitration to become a forum for the resolution of sovereign debt disputes, which, in turn, undermines the ability of debtor States to comply with their human rights obligations. Given this outcome, the article argues against the use of investment treaty arbitration as a forum to resolve sovereign debt disputes and suggests practical, human rights-oriented solutions that States can implement to preclude this practice. In so doing, the article highlights the need for States and decision-makers in international law to be cognizant of the implications of their actions and to respond pro-actively to developments in international law that generate detrimental outcomes.